ExplodingFuelTanks.
com
I.
State of the Art – 1940
And he had a helmet of brass upon his head,
and was covered with a coat of mail; and the weight
of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.
T
he year 1940 was a critical one in the
development of fuel tank protection and
other safety features for combat aircraft.
k
The European war started in September 1939;
an
and, in late 1939 relatively few combat aircraft
in Europe or elsewhere were equipped with
protected fuel tanks or armor plate to protect
lT
the pilot, aircrew or vital equipment. The main
exception was the German medium bomber force
ue
where self-sealing fuel tanks were standard. In
the United States none of the principal combat
aircraft of the Army Air Corps (B-18, A-17, P-35
gF
and P-36) had armor or fuel tank protection. The
same was true of U.S. Navy aircraft. By the
end of 1940 most aircraft in Europe flying in
in
combat had some form of fuel tank protection
and armor. In the United States research and
od
development in fuel tank protection resulted in
rapid advances and important improvements in
self-sealing fuel tanks.
pl
The issue of protecting the pilot and vital parts
of an aircraft from enemy ground or aircraft fire
Ex
was not new. In World War I low flying aircraft had
proved vulnerable to ground fire and attempts
were made to fashion a rudimentary form of armor
for aircraft that routinely engaged in low level
attacks. In the years between the wars only slight
progress was made in this area. For bombers,
high altitude attacks were thought to be the best
protection from anti-aircraft fire and high speed
supplemented by defensive armament brought
protection from fighters. For fighters, it was hard
enough to obtain the necessary performance
m
co
– I Samuel 17:5
with the limited horse-power available much less
s.
add to the burden by the weight of armor. The
ability to maneuver out of the line of fire was
considered the best defense for a fighter.
Fuel tank protection was particularly a
problem since armor plating the entire system
of fuel tanks and lines was simply impracticable.
The earliest attempt to bullet-proof a fuel tank
may have been the Loughead redesign of the
Curtiss HS-2L flying boat in 1918. The idea
of creating a fuel tank or coating a tank in a
way that would seal bullet holes reappeared
periodically but its practical implementation
proved difficult. Vulcanized rubber had been
used to coat the interior of steel tanks in various
industrial applications. Vulcanized rubber
(natural rubber heated in the presence of sulfur)
was insoluble in most common solvents including
gasoline. In contrast natural rubber was soluble
and expanded in the presence of gasoline. These
properties were known and had been utilized to
make flexible vulcanized rubber hoses to replace
metal piping in aircraft fuel and oil lines. They
made rubber a potential candidate for application
in protected fuel tanks. Eventually combinations
of synthetic rubber-like materials and natural
rubber proved most effective.
In Germany chemical engineering related to
rubber and synthetic rubber-like materials was
relatively advanced. The Germans exploited the
idea of combining layers of rubber to produce
a protected fuel tank. Early examples of this
technology were fitted to the Ju  86 and Do 17
14 ExplodingFuelTanks.com Richard L. Dunn

bombers in production in 1937 and 1938. These

first examples were more expensive than simple
aluminum tanks and were relatively heavy. Later
these tanks would prove effective against rifle
caliber fire in actual  combat. By 1939 a standard
German medium bomber tank consisted of chrome-
tanned leather 3mm thick, a 3mm absorbent strata
of unvulcanized rubber, and 0.5mm of vulcanized
rubber. It was both lighter and more effective than

m
earlier tanks.
A number of countries were engaged in

co
experiments with protective features for bombers
and to a lesser extent for fighters. In addition some
countries such as Germany were actually fitting

s.
protected fuel tanks to aircraft on the production
line. In 1939 when the Japanese army upgraded its

k
Type 97 heavy bombers (model Ki 21-Ib) with added

an
armament it also added a basic form of fuel tank
protection, thin layers of laminated rubber covering
the standard fuel tanks. This might be the exception
lT that proves the rule since this was prior to similar
American or British bombers having any type of fuel
ue
tank protection.
The Soviets were notable in providing pilot
and fuel tank protection for fighters earlier than
gF

other countries. First introduced in 1934, later

versions of the Polikarpov I-15, beginning in 1936,
were equipped with a 9mm thick steel alloy plate
in

protecting the pilot’s head. Late model I-15’s and

the monoplane I-16 were fitted with a system of
od

piping that captured engine exhaust gases, cooled

them, and introduced them into the fuel tank
to reduce the oxygen content of the vapor left in
pl

the tank as fuel was consumed. By the time the

Russians fought the Japanese over Nomonhan in
Ex

1939 some of their fighters were equipped with the

exhaust gas system. The basic concept of controlling
the volatility of the gaseous contents of the fuel
tank remains relevant today. Neither the pilot
nor fuel tank was completely protected but these
early efforts to introduce protective measures in a
fighter design were in advance of other countries.
Some later Soviet fighters notably the widely used
LaGG-3 were similarly equipped but added fuel
tanks encased in fabric sheets impregnated with
phenol-formaldehyde resin derived from the original
Exploding Fuel Tanks ExplodingFuelTanks.com 15

m
co
k s.
an
lT
ue
gF
in
od
pl
Ex
16 ExplodingFuelTanks.com Richard L. Dunn

m
co
k s.
an
lT
ue
gF
in
od
pl
Ex
Exploding Fuel Tanks ExplodingFuelTanks.com 17

m
co
k s.
an
lT
ue
gF
in
od
pl
Ex
18 ExplodingFuelTanks.com Richard L. Dunn

m
co
k s.
an
lT
ue
gF
in
od
pl
Ex
Exploding Fuel Tanks ExplodingFuelTanks.com
synthetic resin, Bakelite (sometimes called
“hard rubber”) to the exhaust gas system and
armor. In 1939 a prototype Yakovlev fighter
had its metal fuel tanks encased in vulcanized
rubber. Later LaGG-3’s also adopted the rubber
encased tanks.
During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)
foreign military observers reported on the
armor protection of Soviet fighters supplied to
the Republican forces. United States Navy and
Army Air Corps technical offices received these
reports. Reports of the exhaust gas system came
later during the fighting in the Far East and were
forwarded via diplomatic channels to the U.S. Army
and Navy. For the Germans tracer and incendiary
rounds fired from Soviet Polikarpov fighters at
k
their Ju-52’s used as bombers with unprotected
an
fuel tanks may have spurred developments. The
Ju-86 bomber was one of the first German aircraft
to have tanks with rudimentary bullet protection.
lT
France purchased a considerable number
of American combat aircraft before and in the
ue
early months of the war. The export version of
the Curtiss P-36 which they acquired in quantity
was well thought of but came in for some
gF
criticism once combat began for its lack of armor
and protected fuel tanks. This criticism would
have been more fairly leveled against a lack of
in
capability to retrofit the P-36 with protective
features. At the war’s start few French aircraft
od
were well equipped with protective features and
their most numerous fighter, the Morane-Saulnier
M.S. 406 did not have a protected fuel tank but
pl
was hastily fitted with pilot seat armor after lack
of this was recognized as a serious deficiency.
Ex
Their most modern fighter the Dewoitine D-
520 originally came off the production line
with pilot armor but lacking protection for its
fuel tanks. Another American import the newly
designed Douglas DB-7 light bomber was initially
delivered without armor or tank protection but
the French later required these to be added on
the production line.
In Britain research on protected fuel tanks
reached the stage of practical application in
1939. Henderson Safety Tank Co. Ltd. built a
19
tank in three layers 3/16th inch thick consisting
of a metal wall, a sealing sheet of “hencorite”
rubber, and another layer of metal. Fireproof
Tanks Ltd. took another approach by applying
a resilient covering to the outside of a standard
aluminum fuel tank. The Henderson product
was meant to be crash proof as well as bullet
protected and it found applications in training
aircraft in addition to combat aircraft, mainly
m
bombers. The covered tank was initially applied
to the Fairey Battle light bomber whose mission
co
included low level attacks. It was subsequently
fitted to fighters and a variety of other aircraft.
Additional firms were eventually involved in
s.
producing various types of protective covers for
tanks among them Dunlop a leading tire and
rubber company. The fact that these protective
technologies were available did not mean that
they were immediately applied or considered a
matter of high priority.
Things were changing rapidly. In May 1940
Winston Churchill wrote to President Franklin
Roosevelt: “Our most vital need is, therefore,
the delivery at the earliest possible date of the
largest possible number of Curtiss P-40 fighters,
now in the course of delivery to your Army.” The
first P-40 arrived in Britain in September 1940
during the Battle of Britain. About 140 early
model P-40s were delivered to Britain without
protected fuel tanks or armor. None was ever
used in combat despite the fact that below
20,000 feet the P-40 was in many respects
superior to the most numerous R.A.F. fighter, the
Hurricane I; and, could compete favorably with
both the Hurricane and Spitfire in low altitude
performance and range.
In 1940 after several months of combat,
Britain’s Royal Air Force began to retrofit its
fighters and bombers with armor and fuel
tank protection. This was done even though
the weight of armor adversely affected climb
rate and range, and, in the case of the Spitfire,
merely adding an externally mounted bullet-
resistant glass windshield reduced maximum
speed by more than 5 m.p.h. Armor added 73
pounds to the Spitfire’s weight. The standard
20 ExplodingFuelTanks.com Richard L. Dunn

m
co
k s.
an
lT
ue

On August 24, 1940 the Bf 109E-4 flown by Fw. Artur Beese of 9./JG 26 was shot up by R.A.F.
gF

fighters. Beese crash landed his “Yellow 11” near St. Ingelvert, France.
in
od
pl

Beese survived the

Ex

crash. He owed his life

to his head armor that
stopped a bullet that
entered the cockpit
from behind.
Exploding Fuel Tanks ExplodingFuelTanks.com 21

of safety sought by the

Royal Air Force for fighters
was protection from .303
caliber fire at 200 yards in
a cone of 20 degrees from
directly astern or directly
ahead.
The Spitfires of No.  92
Squadron were just be-

m
ing equipped with the new
windshield when the squad-

co
ron first entered combat in
late May 1940. Stanford
Tuck soon to become squad-

ron leader and a great ace
confronted a Bf 109 in a
s.
The layout of the Messerschmitt
110C-1, in service in the summer
of 1939. It initially carried no

k
armour or self-sealing tanks but it
head on pass and survived would soon have them fitted.

an
two bullet hits in his wind-
shield. Later a third bullet
from the ground dinged the
armored windshield. Tuck’s
lT
Cross-section of
Spitfire had been fitted with Messerschmitt 109F, showing
ue
protection afforded the pilot.
the armored windshield
that very day. Other Spit-
fires in the squadron had
gF

not yet received the new

feature. In its first day of
combat 92 Squadron lost
in

half its strength including

its squadron commander.
od

The following day Tuck shot The layout of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and 110
down two Do 17s. One fell
in flames after a prolonged
pl

hammering and the other crashed without burn- Not all squadrons were immediately equipped.
ing. Tuck returned in his badly damaged Spitfire In some squadrons armor arrived but days
Ex

with minor wounds inflicted by a Do 17 gunner.
One Spitfire was lost and others damaged by
the German gunners in this combat. In future
combats Tuck would badly riddle a Do 17 which
none-the-less survived and he would return with
damage from a Do 17’s gunner.
In June 1940 No.  92 Squadron received
armor plate behind the pilot seats of its Spitfires
as did a number of other Spitfire and Hurricane
squadrons. Almost immediately reports were
received of pilots being saved by their armor.
passed before fittings to mount the armor
were received.
Fuel tank protection for R.A.F. fighters was
initially obtained by wrapping the tank with
“Linatex”, a blanket of rubber and treated canvas
(the rubber expanded when exposed to gasoline
and filled a hole caused by a bullet puncture).
Linatex had originally been developed for
industrial and various aviation applications and
while not a perfect solution was readily available.
Hurricane tanks were retrofitted with Linatex
22 ExplodingFuelTanks.com
coverings by squadron maintenance personnel
beginning in September 1940. Spitfires had a
modicum of protection provided by heavy gauge
aluminum on their cowlings over their upper
fuel tanks. Their tanks were also sandwiched
between two sturdy aluminum bulkheads.
Spitfires coming off the production line and out
of repair facilities at the end of September were
fitted with Linatex fuel tank coverings. Like the
Hurricanes Spitfires were also refitted in the
squadrons as other maintenance work permitted.
Although not acknowledged at the time this was
less than completely satisfactory. Since these
were retrofits there was not sufficient clearance
to fit the material to all tanks. In particular the
Spitfire’s upper fuel tank in front of the cockpit
k
was left uncovered. Pilots that encountered fires
an
in this tank usually suffered disfiguring facial
burns if they survived. The reserve fuel tank
directly in front of the pilot on the Hurricane
lT
was also left uncovered because it was thought
armor and the engine were sufficient protection.
ue
Although covered with Linatex the Hurricanes’
main wing fuel tanks gained a reputation as
being far from invulnerable.
gF
The covered tanks were fitted to various
aircraft in addition to Spitfires and Hurricanes.
The Germans found examples on a number of
in
crashed aircraft in 1940 and 1941. The coverings
they examined had multiple layers of protective
od
material and varied from 5 to 15mm (about 2/10
to 6/10th inch) in thickness. When the material
was tested in the United States it was found to be
pl
useless against .50 caliber fire. Some American
experts thought Linatex might be somewhat
Ex
effective against rifle caliber fire but suspected it
was fitted more as a morale factor pending the
development of more satisfactory tank protection.
American conclusions may have been unduly
pessimistic since in combat bullets were normally
fired at longer ranges than in the test laboratory
and had to penetrate the outer skin of the
wing or fuselage before impacting a fuel tank.
The velocity and energy of the bullet would be
somewhat reduced by the encounter with the
aircraft’s skin (a low angle of incidence potentially
Richard L. Dunn
deflecting the bullet) and this may have increased
the survivability of the tank when hit. However,
the encounter of the bullet with the skin usually
caused the bullet to tumble sometimes resulting
in the bullet impacting the tank along its long
axis rather than its narrowest profile. A tumbling
bullet that retained enough velocity to penetrate
the tank could create a large hole that would be
difficult to seal.
m
An external tank covering was fitted to some
aircraft produced in the United States for the
co
British. The Curtiss Tomahawk II (equivalent
to U.S. P-40B model) was fitted with this type
tank protection (the material was “Superflexit”
s.
previously used in aircraft hose and piping
applications). The aircraft that were supplied to
the American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) in
China were so equipped. The experience of the
Flying Tigers seems to confirm the efficacy of
Superflexit or Linatex-type protection against light
caliber machine guns. Tomahawks were often hit
by Japanese machine gun fire but comparatively
few became outright losses in combat and rare
were reports of Tomahawks crashing in flames.
Most of their opponents whether bombers or
fighters mounted only rifle caliber machine guns.
When the Battle of Britain began in July of
1940 the Royal Air Force was still in the process
of equipping some of its Spitfires and Hurricanes
with armor. Protected tanks were not standard
until well into the battle. A Messerschmitt
Bf 109E-3 captured early in the war was not
equipped with armor or a self-sealing fuel tank.
However, the Bf 109E-4 and later production
Bf 109E-3s were equipped with pilot armor and
many early production Bf 109E-1s and E-3s
were retrofitted with armor before the Battle of
Britain. This consisted of two 8mm thick bolt on
armor plates, a head protection plate of about
29 pounds and a back plate of 53 pounds. The
8mm plates proved capable of defeating British
.303 rounds. Some pilots objected to having the
armor added to their aircraft preferring to forego
the protection and save the added weight.
By July 1940 some of the Bf 109Es operating
over Britain had armored glass windshields as
Exploding Fuel Tanks ExplodingFuelTanks.com 23

m
co
k s.
an
lT
ue
gF
in
od
pl
Ex

Covered tanks were common knowledge even to the Germans. In addition to Linatex by 1941
six other types of covers had been approved by the British Air Ministry.
24 ExplodingFuelTanks.com
well as pilot armor. The Bf 109E had a laminated
bulkhead behind the fuel tank but self-sealing
fuel tanks first appeared on the Bf 109 after the
Battle of Britain (the “L” shaped fuel tank below
and behind the pilot seat no doubt constituted a
considerable design problem). Eventually most
Bf  109F and G models were found to be fitted
with a tank made of an inner lining of rubberized
fabric and layers of vulcanized rubber, thin raw
rubber, thick raw rubber and vulcanized rubber of
a total thickness of 15mm boxed inside 5mm of
laminated plywood. Chrome-tanned leather was
used as a lining according to German sources.
The tank weighed 121 pounds compared to 58
pounds for the Bf 109E tank but some weight
was saved by partially eliminating the bulkhead
k
in later models. Most German bombers had been
an
equipped with effective fuel tank protection and
at least modest armor before the war began.
Unlike the Bf-109E Germany’s twin-engine
Bf-110C fighter was equipped with self-sealing
lT
fuel tanks before the war began. Based on
ue
experience in combat over Norway (Gladiators
with four .303 guns; Hurricanes with eight .303
guns) the R.A.F. learned to try to aim at the 110’s
gF
engines rather than its fuel tanks. One valuable
item Britain sent to the United States was a
fuel tank from a crashed Messerschmitt Bf 110.
in
From this the American engineers deduced that
the Germans had undertaken extensive pre-war
od
research on fuel tank construction. The Germans
sought immunity from 7.92mm fire in their
tanks. Although the tank had been constructed
pl
in a way that gave adequate protection against
rifle caliber fire but not against .50 caliber fire, it
Ex
embodied innovations that addressed several of
the problems the Americans were trying to solve
in their tank research.
In the United States research which had been
conducted at a low level for years was intensified
during 1940. The actual research was conducted
primarily by private companies. Foremost
among them were the giant tire companies,
Firestone, Goodrich, Goodyear, and U.S. Rubber.
Their efforts were supplemented by Hewitt
Rubber Company and the Aircraft Protective
Richard L. Dunn
Products Company. Both natural and synthetic
rubbers were used. Eventually key chemical
and materials manufacturers, Dow, DuPont and
Monsanto, provided special plastics and metals.
Test facilities were primarily provided by U.S.
Army and Navy laboratories at Wright Field and
Dahlgren Proving Ground.
Here it might be worth saying a word about
testing. Most tests were conducted against tanks
m
secured under static and controlled conditions in
a test facility under laboratory conditions. This
co
allowed for scientific analysis of results. However,
in most cases firing was done at close range with
weapons that replicated but were not necessarily
s.
identical with armament used in aircraft. Nor
were conditions most likely to be encountered in
combat replicated. Test results were valid for the
specific conditions of the test. Truly sophisticated
testing against a tank embedded in an aircraft
structure under dynamic conditions such as in a
wind tunnel was conducted relatively rarely. In
Britain test results were considered most reliable
only if the firing was done against a tank or armor
within an aircraft.
Research in the United States differed from
that in other countries in that the U.S. decided
to pursue tanks that could withstand .50 caliber
fire. This produced unexpected results. Many fuel
cells were slab shaped aluminum tanks made up
of rectangular sections with welded seams. The
companies’ first attempts to protect the tanks
generally involved applying layers of rubber
covering the sides of the tank and cemented at
the edges. Some approaches also increased the
gauge of aluminum used and rounded the edges of
the tanks with overlapping metal at the seams. It
was initially thought that a .50 caliber penetration
would not be much more difficult to seal than a
.30 caliber hole. Penetration holes were expected
to be approximately the size of the projectile.
The problem caused by firing a .50 caliber
round proved far more difficult than sealing a
half inch hole. The Navy trailed behind the Army
in tank research but quickly made progress.
Testing at Dahlgren showed that at close
range the .50 caliber round acted more like a
Exploding Fuel Tanks ExplodingFuelTanks.com 25

pole stuck through the entire tank creating
a hydraulic shock or ram effect greater than
expected. Instead of a small exit hole, the result
was that an entire rubber covered rectangular
panel failed. The aluminum welds and cemented
rubber came apart. Even when the rear wall of
the tank did not fail, the exit hole caused by the
projectile tumbling through the fluid contents
of the tank sometimes produced an elongated
Metal fittings were kept to a minimum. The
arrangement was similar to an early German
self-sealing tank found in a crashed Do 17 and
many of the designs incorporated features found
in the Bf 110 tank provided to the Americans by
the British.
The Bf 110 tank examined in the United
States had no external shell such as was common
with initial American designs and consisted

m
gash two to three inches long. This forced the of multiple layers. A relatively hard inner
American engineers in a direction far from merely layer impervious to gasoline was a composite

co
finding the right material to cover a conventional constructed of hardened fabric and synthetic
aluminum tank. Subsequent designs generally material. A substantial layer of gum rubber
involved a rubber bladder incorporating sealant was covered by a thin layer of natural latex

s.
placed within an aluminum shell. Eventually the covered in turn by an outer layer of chrome-
aluminum shell was replaced with one made of tanned leather. The vertical tank dimension was

k
synthetic resin. Tests showed that splinters from relatively thin. The tank was suspended within

an
the shell sometimes caused more damage than
the bullets which penetrated into the rubber
tank. Finally the shell was dispensed with leaving
lT
a flexible tank in which a minimum of fittings
were made of metal.
ue
The American research produced a variety of
tank designs. They all had in common a basic
structure or bladder that was entirely formed
gF
the wing leaving space between the tank and
the wing structure so that if the tank bulged
from hydraulic shock effects it would not be
damaged by contact with the aircraft structure.
Among the many contributors to the
development of effective self-sealing tanks a few
received recognition for special achievements. In
1939 Ernst Eger of U.S. Rubber was working on

from non-metallic materials.

The bladder consisted of layers
of materials typically cemented
in

together including three basic

elements, an absorbent interior
od

lining and inner and outer layers.

The inner layer (typically rubber-
coated fabric, synthetic rubber, or
pl

flexible plastic) was impervious

to gasoline and the one or more
Ex

interior layers were usually a

natural form of rubber (rubber
latex, sponge rubber, or partially
vulcanized rubber) that swelled
when exposed to gasoline. The
exterior covering might be of
leather, fabric, or composite
plastic. The tank was typically
installed by suspending it with
non-metallic material inside the Results of a gunfire test on a fuel tank intended for a
wing or fuselage of the aircraft. Curtiss P-40
26 ExplodingFuelTanks.com
k s.
Illustration of self-sealing action from a U.S. Army Technical Manual
an
puncture-sealing “safety” tires for automobiles
for which he was subsequently awarded patents.
lT
His wartime work on self-sealing fuel tanks was
credited with saving the lives of thousands of
ue
pilots in a letter of appreciation issued by the
Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics in 1946. James
Merrill of Goodyear was awarded a patent for
gF
refinements in methods in manufacturing self-
sealing materials. In 1942 he received a citation
from the War Production Board particularly
in
pointing out his achievement in developing tank
materials that could accommodate aromatic
od
gasolines without deteriorating.
The tanks that proved effective were
somewhat complicated. Initially, only partial
pl
protection from a .50 caliber fire was achieved.
They normally had half a dozen or more layers of
Ex
material. They were heavy with a typical thickness
of the tank wall being at least ½-inch and often
¾-inch (19mm) or more. They soon proved to
require careful handling and maintenance.
Britain, Germany and the United States
all continued their own developments. Britain
was given access to U.S. developments and
later participated on a committee formed
to standardize fuel tanks between the U.S.
Army and Navy. By the end of 1940 several
versions of self-sealing tanks had been
Richard L. Dunn
m
co
developed and were in use in these countries.
None of these countries had achieved perfection.
Sealing could not be guaranteed against all
forms of damage. Problems continued with
operations in low temperatures. Increased
fuel temperatures associated with thick-walled
protected tanks also had to be dealt with.
Pressurizing the tanks for optimum high altitude
performance compromised self-sealing qualities
in some tanks. Use of fuels with high aromatic
content posed problems. Replacement, storage
and maintenance of tanks required great care.
Layered rubber tanks were generally heavier
than aluminum tanks and fuel volume was
often reduced when a self-sealing tank replaced
an aluminum tank.* Some aircraft, especially
those with integral fuel tanks, were not suitable
candidates for refitting with self-sealing tanks.
An upside of the .50 caliber requirement
established by the Americans came when they
fired 20mm explosive rounds into a .50 caliber-
proof tank. A 20mm round detonating in the
gasoline would often fail to cause a fire due
to lack of oxygen. Moreover the pressure from
the explosion did not rupture the bladder. This
* Examples include fuel capacity of the P-39 being
reduced from 170 to 120 gallons and the wing tank capacity
of the B-25 falling from 912 to 694 gallons.
Exploding Fuel Tanks ExplodingFuelTanks.com
is not to say that a 20mm round exploding on,
or close to the outside of, the tank could not
produce catastrophic results. While not perfect,
self-sealing tanks had been developed to a high
degree of efficiency. As 1941 progressed many
Allied aircraft in production received these tanks
and some older aircraft were retrofitted. Many
aircraft in production were still equipped with
aluminum tanks or first generation protected
tanks made of aluminum with an external wrap.
Testing revealed another unexpected result
before aluminum tanks were abandoned and
metal fittings to rubber tanks were minimized.
Sometimes a copper covered solid round
containing no explosive or incendiary material
caused a small flash upon coming in contact
k
with the metal of the tank. This combined with
an
the destructive effect of the hydraulic ram
phenomenon caused tanks to explode. The
results were unpredictable. Many tests would
lT
occur without an explosion and then a series
of explosions would occur in successive tests.
ue
The cause of this was not understood until it
was almost accidentally found that the friction
of the round penetrating the aluminum heated
gF
in
od
pl
Ex
Above: Female workers at Goodrich prepare a metal
tank to receive a self-sealing cover, 1941.
At right: Workers applying the outer covering to a
self-sealing tank
27
the round and tank, sometimes to the melting
point of aluminum, enough to cause ignition.
Later combat would confirm that aluminum
tanks could, but not always did, explode under
concentrated hits from close-range fire.
The basic notion of protecting a fuel tank
with alternating layers of materials impervious
to gasoline and soluble in gasoline was not
new in 1940 but it took an intensive program
m
involving the resources of many industrial and
government laboratories to actually perfect a
co
tank in the United States. The Germans had
obtained satisfactory results with a program
that probably applied an approximately equal
s.
amount of resources earlier and over a longer
period. The basic structure of these tanks could
be determined merely by examining an example
from a crashed aircraft. That told only part of the
story, however, since a large part of the research
that went into developing these tanks related
to the manufacturing technology required to
produce suitable materials and build the tanks.
There really was no short cut way to produce
effective self-sealing tanks without mastering
the manufacturing technology.
28 ExplodingFuelTanks.com Richard L. Dunn

m
co
k s.
an
Goodrich workers building forms for the manufacture of
self-sealing tanks A female worker at Goodrich stitches
an inner ply to a building form.
lT Women made up a considerable
proportion of the work force
ue
producing self-sealing tanks.
gF
in
od
pl
Ex

Above: A female worker irons the cloth

covering the heavy paper building forms
for bullet-sealing tanks.

At right: Some muscle power was

needed to remove forms from
a tank after it had been sealed
by being heated under pressure.
Exploding Fuel Tanks ExplodingFuelTanks.com 29

m
co
k s.
an
lT
ue

Installing an access door in a self-sealing tank This man is inside a self-sealing tank working
on fittings for a fuel supply line.
gF
in
od
pl
Ex

At left: Inspecting a completed tank

Above: Placing unvulcanized tanks in a vulcanizer

30 ExplodingFuelTanks.com Richard L. Dunn

m
co
k s.
an
Top left and right: Two views of a
huge vulcanizing unit originally used
for producing tires for earth-moving lT
equipment, and then modified for use
in molding fuel tanks
ue

At right:
gF

Rows of vulcanized
self-sealing fuel
tanks for military
in

aircraft awaiting
final finishing
od
pl
Ex

In addition to self-sealing fuel tanks other
safety systems were also being developed.
One of these was spray to cover engine and
fuel lines in cooling/oxygen-depriving carbon
dioxide (or other inert gases) to suppress fires.
Similar systems were also employed to purge
fuel tanks that were not self-sealing. This was
a more efficient variation of the Soviet exhaust
gas system developed years earlier. A variety
of armor in various thicknesses was introduced
to aircraft. Armor materials varied from case-
hardened steel or alloys, to homogenous steel,
to aluminum deflector plates depending on the
purpose of the armor, availability of materials,
type of aircraft and location within the aircraft.
Acrylics graduated from a component of safety
glass to clear vision “Plexiglas”. Plasticized
cellulose acetate sandwiched between layers
of glass became “armored” glass. In the United
States low-pressure oxygen systems were
introduced to lower the threat of explosion
compared to high-pressure systems.